The Petitioner, a programmer analyst, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. USCIS may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
For the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, users concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. In applying the Dhanasar framework, users determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate meeting any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Upon de novo review, we agree with users' determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate his proposed endeavor is of national importance under the first prong of Dhanasar.3 Dhanasar 's first prong focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. The Petitioner is currently employed as a programme analyst for a • ewelr business in New York. For his proposed endeavor, he plans to work on a pro·ect named ---------~-' for which he would "innovate and optimize" the quality control processes o .__________.by designing, developing, and deploying "an artificial intelligence-based software with image pattern recognition capabilities for quality testing of high-end jewelry." The Petitioner indicates that the new software would "automate the quality inspection process, defect identification, and authentication of high-end jewelry pieces, enhancing efficiency and reducing the risk of human errors" during the jewelry manufacturing process.
To help explain his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner's request for evidence reply included a business plan, a letter of intent from a business client, and a collaboration agreement between the Petitioner and I IThe Petitioner explained that he and his employer entered into the collaboration ~ment whereby he agreed to carry out the work for thel !project, andl I L_J agreed to provide its infrastructure, including sample jewelry and financial investment for equipment, personnel, and other costs related to the development and deployment of the newl I Osoftware. The business plan and collaboration agreement explain the project's costs and a timeline of approximately two years over multiple phases, including analysis and planning for the feasibility of developing the software; equipment acquisition and environment configuration for carrying out the project; identification of jewelry characteristics and image collection for a database; design and development of deep learning algorithms to recognize jewelry quality and authentication characteristics and for a user-friendly interface for clients to upload images and obtain jewelry quality and authentication results; integration, testing, and validation of software; and deployment of the 2 To qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted a diploma and an academic transcript indicating he earned a master of science in computer science from I hn New York. Based on the evidence, the Petitioner has established he is an advanced degree professional. 3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 3 I software product in the jewelry production environment. The Petitioner indicates thatl ~would use the new software for its jewelry manufacturing process with future plans to market the software to other jewelry manufacturers in I I and nationwide under a 50/50 ownership structure.
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, USCIS concluded that he did not establish that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. USCIS determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate his proposed endeavor would extend beyond his employer, I I I Iand its clients to have the claimed potential prospective impact on his field, societal welfare, or the nation more broadly at a level consistent with national importance.No broader implications shown
On appeal, the Petitioner contends USCIS based the decision on erroneous conclusions of law and fact, arguing that USCIS misapplied the Dhanasar standards and dismissed evidence demonstrating he merits a national interest waiver. He maintains that USCIS was incorrect to determine his proposed endeavor would not extend more broadly beyond his employer and its clients. When considering all the evidence, he maintains that it clearly demonstrates the national importance of his proposed endeavor, including his endeavor's potential broad implications on the nation and his field through technological advancements and improved jewelry manufacturing processes field. In addition, he claims his proposed endeavor has the significant potential to create U.S. jobs and impact the U.S. and local economies, societal and cultural welfare, and national initiatives.
In the decision, USCIS did not consider the documents submitted with his request for evidence reply, determining the new evidence constituted a material change to the petition.Tried to change the endeavor after filing We, however, agree with the Petitioner that submission of such evidence with his request for evidence reply does not constitute a material change to the petition, but instead clarifies his proposed endeavor as set out in his initial petition.
With the appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, specifically an opinion letter evaluating the petition under the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner claims the opinion letter should not be considered new evidence, but rather as evidence clarifying and explaining previously submitted evidence, citing Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Comm. 1998) and Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec 764, 766 (BIA 1988).Evidence submitted too late We, however, will not consider this new evidence for the first time on appeal, as it was not presented to USCIS after the Petitioner had an oppmiunity to do so with his response to USCIS' request for evidence. See Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766 (declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). Dhanasar 's first prong focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to corroborate his claims that the prospective impact ofhis proposed endeavor is commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner's business plan and the collaboration agreement provide broad descriptions of the project with a general plan to p. 4 market the potential! Isoftware product to other jewelry manufacturing businesses. Mainly using general tenns, the documents broadly claim his proposed! !product has the potential to impact the U.S. economy, the jewelry manufacturing industry, and other manufacturing industries. Although the documents provide steps the Petitioner intends to take in order to attain its objectives to develop, design, and deploy! !software and market it to others, the plans are brief and vague, lacking detailed information and evidence corroborating his claims of the project's broad impacts.
The Petitioner's statements and business plan stress the importance of artificial intelligence and the jewelry manufacturing industry to the U.S. economy; the expected increase in demand for technology manufacturing-related services; and the Petitioner's project helping to fill a shortage of workers in fields related to advanced artificial intelligence systems. However, merely using artificial intelligence technologies in the jewelry manufacturing field or working in a growing field with a shortage of workers is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The U.S. Department of Labor, through the labor certification process, directly addresses such shortages of qualified workers. Moreover, the growth and importance of an industry are not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or field, or a shortage of workers in a field, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor aligns with national initiatives and USCIS policy guidance recognizing the importance of advancing machine learning and artificial intelligence for national security and progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). He maintains that his endeavor involves advancing STEM technologies, in particular machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies in the area of manufacturing which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being critical and emerging. In addition, he claims his proposed endeavor aligns with New York State government policies supporting the advancement of artificial intelligence. In support of his claims, the Petitioner submitted federal executive orders relating to advancing U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence and a New York State report describing a partnership between New York's leading public and private universities to establish artificial intelligence computer center to facilitate statewide innovation, research, and development of artificial intelligence technologies.
We acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of artificial intelligence for U.S. manufacturing, attracting qualified professionals in related careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, particularly technology recognized as critical and emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See id. The Petitioner makes general statements about the potential impact of his I Iproject on national initiatives but does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of concern, or provide objective, probative evidence to support his contentions.Proposed endeavor too vague Moreover, the evidence submitted in support ofhis claims does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed project and its potential impact on the field or on such national and local initiatives.Past record does not show influence or success Although advancing artificial intelligence technologies and addressing U.S. manufacturing challenges may be nationally p. 5 important issues, the Petitioner has not demonstrated with corroborating evidence the claimed potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor to such nationally important matters. As discussed above, the importance of an industry or field, such as artificial intelligence and its use for jewelry manufacturing, is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework.
IThe record includes a letter of intent from a jeweler willing to assist the Petitioner and for the I lproject. The jeweler, a client of expresses his willingness to lend his jewelr¥ for the development of the.....______.product in exchange for preferential access to the finalT !product. The letter, however, speaks in general terms about interest in the project and the jeweler's admiration for the Petitioner's work, but does not explain the specifics of the design, development, and deployment of the I Iproduct and their intended professional relationship.Support letters generic or unsupported Without more evidence detailing the specifi_,.;;.c.;;;..s..;;;.o.;;;..f.;;.;;th=e'-'--_____. project and corroborating claims of national importance beyond interest in th .._______,,_roject, the record lacks evidence to determine whether his proposed endeavor has the claimed potential prospective impact on the jewelry manufacturing industry, any other industry, or more broadly rising to the level of national importance.
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
The Petitioner's business plan claims the project has significant potential to create U.S. jobs and have other substantial positive economic effects on the U.S. jewelry manufacturing industry and the U.S. economy. According to his business plan, thel !project expects to improve the efficiencies and scalability of the jewelry manufacturing industry, thereby impacting jewelry shopping tourism for local economies, jewelry exports, and jewelry investments. The Petitioner, however, has not provided corroborating independent and objective evidence to support his claims that hisl !project stands to provide substantial economic benefits to the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
In addition, the business plan indicates that nine to ten full-time employees will be hired to carry out the project and an unspecified number of additional jobs will be created to implement and maintain thel boftware fod Iand any I ~lients. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its staffing projections or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating nine to ten full time jobs for the two year project and an unspecified number of workers to implement and maintain! Irises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner has not provided corroborating independent and objective evidence to support his claims that his work on thel Dproject stands to provide broader impact on his field and substantial economic benefits to the nation or the local New York community.
I
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Beyond general assertions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the work he proposes to undertake for the I !project offers the claimed innovations that contribute to advancements in his field, artificial intelligence, U.S. manufacturing, or other broader implications. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his claims and must be supported with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The record lacks evidence detailing and adequately explaining how his proposed I !project will realize the claimed impacts. The potential economic, societal welfare, and cultural impacts that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and he did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed endeavor and the claimed potential impacts. Without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as a programme analyst and his work on the I I project would impact the jewelry manufacturing field more broadly, rather than benefiting his employer and its clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor has the potential to impact his field, the U.S. economy, societal welfare, or nationally important matters more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance ofa Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.